Malaysia’s Defence Minister Mohamad Sabu said yesterday that his country supports the move to denuclearise the Korean peninsula, but that all the nuclear powers should be stripped of their nuclear arsenal in the future.

Malaysia is also hopeful for a good outcome for the June 12 summit in Singapore between United States President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Mr Mohamad said in a media interview on the sidelines of the 17th Shangri-La Dialogue security conference.

“Malaysia is fully supportive of any commitment towards the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula. The problem is why only Korea? Why only Iran?

“Why not America, China, Russia, India, Pakistan? So that is monopoly.

“We hope that denuclearisation must be (for) all.”

He said that it was “dangerous for the world” to have the US or North Korea threatening each other with their nuclear weapons.

He described the Trump-Kim summit as a good start towards denuclearisation.

“Whether the meeting will be successful or not, that is another matter, than the fact they would even meet,” said Mr Mohamad, who was sworn in as Defence Minister two weeks ago.

A factory processing radioactive materials in Perak gave the people living nearby leukemia.

Bukit Merah’s rare earth metal processing site cleanup had been thelargest radiation cleanup so far in the world’s rare earth industry. Dr. Yoshihiko Wada’s report revealed that Mitsubishi Chemical came up with ARE in Bukit Merah after being one of the main companies that caused severe asthma in Nagoya, Japan. Also, 100% of the rare earth products processed in Bukit Merah were exported back to Japan, so it’s not like we gained anything but money from the venture, which puts forth the question of whether it’s worth endangering the lives of local residents for rare earth metals.

Earlier this year, Lynas Corporation had been popping up in the news again. For those of who have no idea who or what Lynas is, a few years back there had been a hullabaloo when Lynas set up a rare-earth processing plant in Gebeng, Kuantan, called the Lynas Advanced Materials Plant (LAMP). But what’s the big deal with that?

The militants had hoped to transform low-grade radioactive Thorium 232 (Th-232) into deadly Uranium 233 (U-233). When combined with powerful home-made explosive triacetone triperoxide (TATP), the concoction can create a “nuclear bomb”, according to an instruction manual used by the militants and reviewed by Reuters.

IS supporters in Malaysia may build bombs with radioactive materials, Today online 02 JANUARY, 2018, KUALA LUMPUR— Fears are growing that fighters from the Islamic State (IS) group, including their sympathisers in Malaysia, may attempt to build bombs using radioactive materials.

This concern is especially real as the Malaysian police have recorded no less than 20 cases involving radioactive and nuclear materials which have “gone missing” over recent years.While some may have been retrieved, the whereabouts of many others remain unknown.

Perturbed by the combination of “missing radioactive goods and IS”, sources in security agencies said it was crucial for the counter-terrorism division to aggressively trace the missing radioactive materials.Normally, these cases will be investigated by the police’s Criminal Investigation Department. However, it should not be treated as a usual case of theft,” the sources said.

“There is a need to trace who the perpetrators are, their background, contacts and find out their motives. These are all vital information that must be cross-checked to ensure that these dangerous materials do not fall into the wrong hands.”

The sources also warned that terrorists might make use of radioactive and nuclear materials which had not been categorised as “controlled items”.

“There are two groups of radioactive and nuclear materials: those which are controlled and monitored by the authorities, and the others that we cannot control as they are stolen or improperly disposed off.”

Concerns about security threats in South-east Asia intensified when Indonesian security forces recently foiled an attempt by militants to detonate a dirty bomb.A dirty bomb is a conventional bomb that contains radioactive material.

The plot was foiled when police raided homes and arrested five suspects in Bandung, West Java in August last year. After the raids, police spoke of a plan to explode a “chemical” bomb but provided no other details.

The militants had hoped to transform low-grade radioactive Thorium 232 (Th-232) into deadly Uranium 233 (U-233). When combined with powerful home-made explosive triacetone triperoxide (TATP), the concoction can create a “nuclear bomb”, according to an instruction manual used by the militants and reviewed by Reuters.

Malaysia has been on high alert since gunmen linked to the IS launched multiple attacks in Jakarta in January 2016 and has arrested hundreds of people over the past few years for suspected links to militant groups, and has arrested hundreds of people over the past few years for suspected links to militant groups.

No Inspections At Construction Sites Without Strong Proof Of Radioactive Readings: Mosti, Malaysian Digest, 02 January 2018 , KUALA LUMPUR:Inspections at construction sites will not be carried out until there is strong proof of elevated readings on radioactivity content in building materials……..

Nuclear and radiation experts yesterday had cautioned the public over potential hazards posed by naturally-occurring radioactive elements in construction materials.

Commonly found in materials naturally sourced from earth, uranium and thorium are Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) often found in bricks, cement blocks, granite, marble or glazed tiles used in the construction of homes.

The two elements (uranium and thorium) undergo a natural decaying process to form other harmful elements and emit several types of radiation, particularly alpha, beta or gamma rays.

BY JORDEENE SHEEX LAGAREON SEPTEMBER 2, 2017 BAGAC, BATAAN: Social acceptance is the biggest hurdle in coming up with a national position on the nuclear power program, according to an Energy official.

Energy Undersecretary Donato Marcos said a wide public acceptance regarding the use of nuclear energy would make it easier for the executive and legislative departments to make a decision regarding the mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP).

A national position is one of the 19 requirements prescribed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for the Development of a National Infrastructure for Nuclear Power.

Pre-feasibility study

A pre-feasibility study on rehabilitating the BNPP is also vital to crafting a national position on the 620-megawatt (MW) facility in this province, Marcos said.

He told reporters on Wednesday that six countries were interested in conducting due diligence on the nuclear power facility, including China, Korea, Japan, France, and the United States.

Malaysia not in a hurry on nuclear power, to raise awareness first — Nancy, Borneo Post, May 1, 2017 KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia will remain focused on the information and communication programme relating to nuclear power generation for the time being, and not in hurry to make any decision to introduce nuclear energy into its energy mix.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nancy Shukri said emphasis needed to be given on nuclear power education first.

“Not necessarily we accept it straight away. I don’t want to commit by saying that we will look into this immediately but it is important to train and educate our people about nuclear (first).

“We have a lot of fear. We are not equipping ourselves with the correct information,” she told Bernama in Shanghai after a four-day working visit to China’s nuclear power facilities recently.

Nuclear power is a complex and sensitive issue that requires deep understanding. It also needs a long-term commitment, taking a long time to materialise, while its programme requires a long lead time in order to cultivate a critical mass of domestic talent capable of supporting any future initiatives……..

During their working visit to China recently, the Malaysian delegation not only studied safe and sustainable nuclear power technology and infrastructure, but also its implementation, especially on ways to achieve public understanding and acceptance.

The visit, which was led by Nancy, was at the invitation of the Chinese Nuclear Society, a non-profit organisation dedicated to nuclear science, technology and engineering…….

The delegation was made up of stakeholders and representatives from government agencies such as the Malaysia Nuclear Power Corporation, Energy Commission, Agensi Inovasi Malaysia, Economic Planning Unit and Malaysian Nuclear Agency, as well as academicians, and Tenaga Nasional Bhd senior executives.

The limited role for nuclear can be explained by the high upfront capital costs, limited access to financing, and uneven and tepid public support in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. Public opposition has been especially evident in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand.”

former Rosatom head Sergey Kirienko’s team has been excellent at drawing up and signing nonbinding nuclear agreements … Actually building nuclear plants seems to be beyond them.

Vietnam’s amazing nuclear journey – why it ended, what it means for South East Asia, Energy Post, November 29, 2016 by Jim GreenOn November 10, Vietnam took the historic decision to scrap its nuclear power program, after many decades of nuclear preparations, up to a ground-breaking ceremony at the first proposed nuclear site in the country in 2014. Jim Green, editor ofNuclear Monitor, published by WISE (World Information Service on Energy), tells the amazing story of nuclear power in Vietnam – and discusses what the Vietnamese decision means for the prospects of nuclear power in South East Asia. Courtesy of Nuclear Monitor.

Let’s first imagine how this story might have unfolded, if the nuclear industry had its way. Construction would be underway on Vietnam’s first nuclear power plant, and plans would be in train to build a total of 14 reactors by 2030. Russia would be building Vietnam’s first reactor, giving it a foothold in south-east Asia (where it has nuclear cooperation agreements with seven countries). Japan and South Korea would also be gearing up to build reactors in Vietnam, a fillip for their troubled domestic nuclear industries and their ambitions to become major nuclear exporters. US nuclear vendors would also be heavily involved, salivating at the US Department of Commerce’s estimate of US$50 billion (€47.4 bn) of contracts for nuclear plants in Vietnam by 2030.

It hasn’t unfolded like that. On November 22, Vietnam’s National Assembly voted in support of a government decision to cancel plans to build nuclear power plants. An immense amount of resources have been wasted on the nuclear program over several decades. Nuclear vendor countries will have to look elsewhere for business. They will continue to try their luck in southeast Asia but they are wasting their time: not a single power reactor is in operation or being built in the region and none will be built in the foreseeable future.

On November 10, Duong Quang Thanh, CEO of staterun Electricity of Vietnam, said the government would propose the cancellation of plans for reactors at the two Ninh Thuan sites to the National Assembly. He added that nuclear power was not included (or budgeted for) in the power plan which runs until 2030 and had already been approved by Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc.

The National Assembly voted on November 22 to support the government’s decision to abandon plans to build nuclear power plants. Energy analyst Mycle Schneider said: “Vietnam is only the latest in a long list of countries, including more recently Chile and Indonesia, that have postponed indefinitely or abandoned entirely their plans for nuclear new-build.”

The decision to abandon nuclear power was primarily based on economics. Duong Quang Thanh said nuclear power is “not economically viable because of other cheaper sources of power.”

Le Hong Tinh, vice-chair of the National Assembly Committee for Science, Technology and Environment, said the estimated cost of four reactors at the two sites in Ninh Thuan province had nearly doubled to VND400 trillion (US$18 bn; €17.9 bn). The estimated price of nuclear-generated electricity had increased from 4‒4.5 US cents / kwh to 8 cents / kwh. Vietnam has spent millions of dollars on the project so far, Tinh said, but continuing the program would add more pressure to the already high public debt.

Another media report states that Japanese and Russian consultants said that the cost has escalated from the original estimate of US$10 billion to US$27 billion (€9.5‒25.6 bn). “The plants will have to sell power at around 8.65 cents a kWh, which is almost twice the rate approved in the project license and is not competitive at all,” according to the VN Express newspaper.

Vietnam’s rising public debt, which is nearing the government’s ceiling of 65% of GDP, was another reason for the program’s cancellation, saidCao Si Kiem, a National Assembly member and former governor of the central bank………

A May 2016 report by WWF-Vietnam and Vietnam Sustainable Energy Alliance (VSEA) finds that 100% of Vietnam’s power can be generated by renewable energy technologies by 2050. There are many available renewable power sources in Vietnam including solar, wind, geothermal heat, biomass and ocean energy. The report contrasts three scenarios: business as usual (with only modest growth of renewables), a Sustainable Energy Scenario (81% renewable power generation by 2050) and an Advanced Sustainable Energy Scenario (100%).

Nuclear power in South East Asia – or not

A 2015 International Energy Agency report anticipates that nuclear power will account for just 1% of electricity generation in south-east Asia by 2040.

The report states: “All countries in Southeast Asia that are interested in deploying nuclear power face significant challenges. These include sourcing the necessary capital on favourable terms, creation of legal and regulatory frameworks, compliance with international norms and regulations, sourcing and training of skilled technical staff and regulators, and ensuring public support. … The limited role for nuclear can be explained by the high upfront capital costs, limited access to financing, and uneven and tepid public support in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. Public opposition has been especially evident in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand.”

A June 2016 media article began: “Rosatom, Russia’s state nuclear-energy agency, is bullish on the outlook of its business in Southeast Asia after the speedy development of a project in Vietnam and a range of agreements with every country in the region except Singapore, the Philippines and Brunei.”

Nikolay Drozdov, director of Rosatom’s international business department, said Rosatom is focusing a lot of attention on south-east Asia, reflected by the decision to establish a regional headquarters in Singapore.

Russia has nuclear cooperation agreements with seven countries in south-east Asia ‒ Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar and Laos. But not one of those seven countries ‒ or any other country in south-east Asia ‒ has nuclear power plants (the only exception is the Bataan reactor in the Philippines, built but never operated) and not one is likely to in the foreseeable future. Nor are other nuclear vendors likely to succeed where Russia is failing.

Drozdov said that after the (stalled) nuclear power project in Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia would likely be the next countries in the region to develop nuclear power.2 But Indonesia’s situation is much the same as Vietnam’s ‒ decades of wasted efforts with little to show for it (and the same could be said about Thailand).

Malaysia’s consideration of nuclear power is preliminary. Why would Russia be making such efforts in southeast Asia given that nuclear power prospects in the region are so dim? The answer may lie with domestic Russian politics. Given Rosatom’s astonishing industry in lining up non-binding nuclear agreements with over 20 countries ‒ ‘paper power plants’ as Vladimir Slivyak calls them ‒ we can only assume that such agreements are looked on favorably by the Russian government.

Slivyak writes: “These ‘orders’ are not contracts specifying delivery dates, costs and a clear timescale for loan repayments (in most cases the money lent by Russia for power plant construction comes with a repayment date). Eighty to ninety per cent of these reported arrangements are agreements in principle that are vague on details, and in the overwhelming majority of cases the contracts aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. … So it is clear that [former Rosatom head Sergey] Kirienko’s team has been excellent at drawing up and signing nonbinding nuclear agreements … Actually building nuclear plants seems to be beyond them.” http://energypost.eu/vietnam-dumps-nuclear-power-economic-reasons-rest-south-east-asia-may-follow/

Hitachi-GE to launch nuclear energy course in Malaysia, WNN 04 August 2016 Japan’s Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy has renewed an agreement with two Malaysian universities under which it will conduct a new international human resources development program to train workers for the nuclear power industry.

Hitachi-GE announced today that it has renewed an agreement with the National University of Malaysia (UKM) and the Universiti Tenaga Nasional (Uniten), a private university operated by Malaysia’s largest power company, Tenaga Nasional Berhad.

Under the agreement, Hitachi-GE will run an international human resources development program for nuclear energy, leveraging a course that the company has jointly conducted with Tokyo Institute of Technology (Tokyo Tech) for the past five years. So far the course has been held at venues in Southeast Asia and other regions and attended by more than 2000 students. For the new program, Hitachi-GE will work with Tokyo Tech, which has cooperation arrangements with UKM and Uniten……….http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Hitachi-GE-to-launch-nuclear-energy-course-in-Malaysia-0408164.html

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia—An audit of a key energy group sold by troubled state investment fund 1Malaysia Development Bhd. to a Chinese state-owned nuclear-power company flagged deep uncertainty over the company’s viability.

Notes from auditor Deloitte in the 140-page financial accounts of Edra Global Energy Bhd. for the year ended March 31, 2015, said the audit found “an existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt about the group’s and company’s ability to continue as a going concern.”

The Act could be tabled in Parliament by next year, said Energy, Green Technology and Water Minister Datuk Seri Maximus Ongkili. However, Ongkili stressed that planning for nuclear power is still at a very early stage and not high on the ministry’s list of priorities.

“The original plan was to have nuclear make up 10% of generation capacity. This would diversify our energy sources. But since the unfortunate incident at Fukushima, [Japan], we are taking more time to study it,” Ongkili told reporters on the sidelines of the Fifth Korea-Malaysia Energy Cooperation Workshop here today.

The low commodity prices have also reduced the incentive to develop the nuclear programme swiftly. Not only are oil and gas prices low, coal is also at record low prices, noted Ongkili.

According to the 2014 Energy Sector Outlook report by the Energy Commission, there are plans to introduce nuclear power to the national grid by 2024. Ongkili said however, that deadline has since moved to 2028, noting that 13 years are plenty of time to study and develop a nuclear programme.

Normally, it takes 10 years to develop a nuclear power plant. “Dealing with the nuclear waste is one of the main issues we need to think about,” he added.For now, the government will place more focus on the renewable energy sector, which is targeted to make up 23% of generation capacity by 2020, said the minister.

Apart from the Nuclear Energy Act, Ongkili said the government plans to set up the institutional infrastructure necessary for the nuclear programme.

Environmental and safety issues aside, getting public support for a nuclear programme might be a challenge going forward, especially if it is more expensive than conventional power sources.

After all, with the removal of electricity subsidies and the introduction of the fuel cost pass-through mechanism, consumers will bear the full brunt of higher generation costs. Also not helping the case for nuclear power is the fact that Malaysia is able to produce its own natural gas.

The Star has discovered that 80,000 200-litre drums containing radioactive waste are currently being kept at the dump located in the Kledang Range behind Papan town. The site is about 3km from Bukit Merah and Papan and about 15km from Ipoh. And the waste is thorium hydroxide, not amang.

Chronology of events in the Bukit Merah Asian Rare Earth developmenthttp://www.consumer.org.my/index.php/health/454-chronology-of-events-in-the-bukit-merah-asian-rare-earth-developments Eight men — a welder, a shoemaker, a general worker, a pensioner, a barber, a tractor driver, a crane-operator and a cancer victim who was to die shortly — sued Asian Rare Earth in 1985 on behalf of themselves and 10,000 other residents of Bukit Merah and the environs in Perak. They wanted to shut down this rare earth plant in their village near Ipoh because its radioactive waste was endangering their lives.

When the Mitsubishi joint venture plant opened over 1982, the villagers soon began complaining of the factory’s stinging smoke and bad smell which made them choke and cry. Worse was to come. Their health began failing, indicated not only by frequent bouts of coughs and colds, but a sharp rise in the incidence of leukaemia, infant deaths, congenital disease and lead poisoning.

For the first time in Malaysian legal history, an entire community has risen to act over an environmental issue, to protect their health and environment from radioactive pollution.

Below is the chronology of what happened when a radioactive rare earth plant was set up in Bukit Merah. Today, about 30 years later, the Government is allowing a new rare earth plant to be set up by Lynas in Gebeng, Kuantan. This new project should be scrapped if the Malaysian Government puts the health of Malaysians before profits. Continue reading →

Mitsubishi Quietly Cleans Up Its Former Refinery http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/business/energy-environment/09rareside.html?_r=0 By KEITH BRADSHER : March 8, 2011 BUKIT MERAH, Malaysia — Hidden here in the jungles of north-central Malaysia, in a broad valley fringed with cave-pocked limestone cliffs topped with acacia and durian trees, lies the site of the largest radiation cleanup yet in the rare earth industry.

Residents blamed a rare earth refinery for birth defects and eight leukemia cases within five years in a community of 11,000 — after many years with no leukemia cases. Seven of the leukemia victims have since died.

The Bukit Merah case is little known even elsewhere in Malaysia, and virtually unknown in the West, because Mitsubishi Chemical quietly agreed to fix the problem even without a legal order to do so. Local protesters had contacted Japanese environmentalists and politicians, who in turn helped persuade the image-conscious company to close the refinery in 1992 and subsequently spend an estimated $100 million to clean up the site.

Image-burnishing was important because the company is part of the Mitsubishi Group of Companies, which has long made Malaysia the cornerstone of its southeast Asian operations. The group has dominant positions in manufacturing a range of products, including air-conditioners and cars.

Mitsubishi Chemical also reached an out-of-court settlement with residents here by agreeing to donate $164,000 to the community’s schools, while denying any responsibility for illnesses.

Osamu Shimizu, the director of Asian Rare Earth, the Mitsubishi Chemical subsidiary that owns the mine, declined to discuss details of the factory’s operation before it closed in 1992. But he said that the company was committed to a safe and complete cleanup.

Workers in protective gear have already removed 11,000 truckloads of radioactively contaminated material, hauling away every trace of the old refinery and even tainted soil from beneath it, down to the bedrock as much as 25 feet below, said Anthony Goh, the consultant overseeing the project for one of Mitsubishi’s contractors, GeoSyntec, an Atlanta-based firm.

To dispose of the radioactive material, engineers have cut the top off a hill three miles away in a forest reserve, buried the material inside the hill’s core and then entombed it under more than 20 feet of clay and granite.

The toughest part of the Bukit Merah cleanup will come this summer, when robots and workers in protective gear are to start trying to move more than 80,000 steel barrels of radioactive waste from a concrete bunker. They will mix it with cement and gypsum, and then permanently store it in the hilltop repository.

The refinery processed slag from old tin mines — material rich in rare earth ore. The company and Malaysian regulators said that it was statistically possible that the leukemia cases were a coincidence because tin mining towns tend to have above-average levels of background radiation. But an academic study of another tin mining town suggested that communities of Bukit Merah’s size should only have one leukemia case every 30 years.

Lai Kwan, aged 69, still recalls how she cheerfully moved in the 1980s from a sawmill job to a better-paying position in the refinery that involved proximity to radioactive materials. She remembers that while pregnant, she was told to take an unpaid day off only on days when the factory bosses said that a particularly dangerous consignment of ore had arrived.

She has spent the last 29 years washing, dressing, feeding and otherwise taking care of her son from that pregnancy, who was born with severe mental and physical disabilities. She and other local residents blame the refinery for the problems, although birth defects can have many causes.

“We saw it as a chance to get better pay,” Ms. Lai recalled. “We didn’t know what they were producing.”

Putrajaya ‘hell-bent’ on nuclear plant despite public concerns, says consumer group Malaysian Insider, 1 February 2015 Plans to build a nuclear plant in Malaysia are afoot, warned a consumer group, and said Putrajaya was misleading the public into thinking that it will consult the people on the use of nuclear energy when it had already decided to proceed with a bill to be table in Parliament this year.

Consumers Association of Penang (CAP) president SM Mohamed Idris said the government was “hell-bent” on introducing nuclear power in the country’s energy mix and highlighted statements made by energy officials over the past year and recently which indicated that Malaysia was intent on adopting nuclear energy.

As proof, he cited the setting up of the Malaysian Nuclear Power Corporation (MNPC) in January 2011, and the listing of nuclear energy as an entry point project in the Economic Transformation Programme in 2010.

“The government is hell-bent on introducing nuclear energy in the country’s energy mix.

“It is disingenuous of the government to continue misleading the public with its standard response line that a decision has yet to be made and the government is still exploring the option to go nuclear,” he said in a statement today.

Mohamed also said Putrajaya had announced its intention to table the Atomic Energy Regulatory Bill in August last year, and that the announcement was welcomed by MNPC chief executive officer, Dr Mohd Zamzam Jaafar, who said MNPC was hopeful that the bill would be approved by Parliament this year.

Malaysia, a nett oil exporter, has, in the past, floated the idea of adding nuclear power to its energy mix to meet long-term fuel needs, but such announcements were always greeted with public disapproval.

In 2010, the minister of energy, green technology and water then, Tan Sri Peter Chin, announced plans to build a nuclear plant that would start operations in 2021.

In July last year, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Mah Siew Keong, who oversees the MNPC, had also said that feasibility studies would be conducted on building nuclear plants as a sustainable energy option for Malaysia.

There is no indication yet of where the proposed nuclear plant would be built, but remote locations close to water sources are required in line with international rules. This would leave a limited number of states, such as Pahang, Johor and Terengganu, as possible locations……….

Seven key factors why nuclear is not the way to go for Malaysia.KUALA LUMPUR: AMAN (ANAK MALAYSIA ANTI NUKLEAR), a grassroots citizen movement, has urged Putrajaya to abort EPP11: Deploying Nuclear Energy for Power Generation, part of the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP), or any other similar plan, and “instead concentrate and focus efforts on renewable energy and energy efficiency”.

AMAN is convinced that nuclear power is neither cheap, clean nor safe. “It is not required for the generation of electricity in Malaysia,” said Aman chairman Dr. Ronald McCoy in a statement.

“AMAN therefore rejects the construction of any nuclear power plant (NPP) in Malaysia.”

AMAN, according to its statement, has taken this position, based on seven key factors: possibility of nuclear weapons proliferation; energy security; extremely expensive; vulnerable to natural disasters and accidents; a ticking time bomb; Malaysia’s existing and planned electricity by other means are sufficient; and the rate of construction of NPPs is skydiving.

AMAN was aware of the ongoing dissemination of false information by the nuclear industry and other vested interests, added the NGO, and “there has not been any genuine transparency of the government’s intentions nor sincere public consultation”.

“Our country must not make the serious mistake of investing in and constructing a nuclear power plant, particularly when there is no existing method of safely disposing the long-lasting radioactive nuclear waste, which will threaten the health of future generations of Malaysians.”

Globally, the use of nuclear power as an energy source was in decline, the statement points out.

1.This Month

The climate change threat to nuclear power

By Natalie Kopytko“…………The final problem is droughts, which climate models predict will become longer and larger. Legal battles have already been fought in the US over scarce water resources in regions with nuclear power plants, including the Catawba river basin in the Carolinas and the Apalachicola/Chattahoochee/Flint river basin in Georgia, Florida and Alabama. These battles show us that adapting our systems – including nuclear power – to a reduced supply of water will not be easy.

The International Atomic Energy Agency advises the nuclear industry to build power plants to last for 100 years. Given that climate models don’t agree on what to expect within this time period, it is not at all clear how this can be achieved.

New reactors could use dry or hybrid systems with lower water requirements, but the costs of running these systems are likely to be prohibitive. Considering nuclear power plants already have problems with construction cost overruns, any additional costs are likely to meet resistance.

What is to be done? Most forms of energy generation are vulnerable in some way to the effects of climate change, and the fact that nuclear power is among them is yet another argument against a wholesale shift towards this source of energy.